The Case for Greater Local Input
RECOMMENDATION 22 RECOMMENDATION 22
9.5 FUTURE DIRECTIONS
our view, schools in general would like to see responsibilities for capital works and maintenance funding clearly specified. There are concerns about the literal meaning of terms used by the Education Department when defining central responsibilities for
"programmed maintenance" and "faults and repairs" At the margins there are concerns that while the "fixed items" (e.g. stoves, kilns and band saws) are a central responsibility, personal computers, which may not literally be "fixed", can become expensive propositions for schools to repair or replace.
The following recommendation has been framed to ensure that some of the best features of the current arrangments are preserved as part of the future directions in school finances.
RECOMMENDATION 24
That, in respect to the current trend in the devolution of school finances, the process of allocating greater decision-making authority to schools be continued, provided that:
i) it enables schools to use the money to greater educational effect;
ii) schools be allowed to carry funds forward to the next year, in accord with the requirements of an endorsed school development plan;
iii) programmed maintenance, faults and repairs and capital works, remain central responsibilities, under the authority of the Director-General; and
iv) adequate support and resources are allocated to schools to enable them to take up the additional responsibilities without detriment to the educational programs of students.
Principal Level 5, Head of Department Level 4, etc.). In funding terms, the school's allocation of general teaching staff is undifferentiated: that is, a beginning teacher at the first rung of the salary scale and an experienced teacher at the top rung of the scale both count as 1.0 FTE in the staffing allocation.
If greater discretion to determine the profile of the school's teaching staff is extended (as we have suggested it should be) to include the provision to increase or decrease the number of appointments in promotional positions, it follows that a school's allocation of teaching staff will have to differentiated by a more finely-grained index than FTE. Broadly speaking, there are two possible ways this might be done: have the staffing formula for a school determine a total "points" value or a total "dollar" value.
We have felt that we are not in a position to pursue this line of argument through to a the formulation of a specific recommendation. Staffing formulas is a complex and sensitive area for everyone closely connected with schooling. Our line of argument is conditional on prior acceptance of our recommendation on increased school discretion in the determination of profiles.
We have not been able to undertake the complex computer modelling required to test options. In other words, there are too many unknowns. We do, however, see an inevitable need for the Education Department to investigate these possibilities to enable our staffing profile recommendation to be fully implemented. Converting the staff allocation for a participating school to "points" rather than "dollars" is more conservative and for that reason we advocate exploration of that strategy in the first instance.
Non-teaching Staff Resources
Compared with teaching staff resources, these are small but significant components of school funding. As with teaching staff, non-teaching staff (registrars and other clerical staff, laboratory staff, cleaners and gardeners, etc.) are centrally allocated according to an FTE value. Certain positions are tagged according to level. For example, the registrar position in a large senior high school is a public service Level 4 position.
The line of argument elaborated in the previous section in relation to local discretion in the determination of the profile of teaching staff also applies to the profile of non- teaching staff. Thus, we argue that if schools are to be granted increased discretionary powers to determine the profile of teaching staff, attention needs also to be given to schools' non-teaching staff allocation. As for teaching staff, this too could be converted either to points or to dollars. We have concluded that a future direction that should be explored immediately by the Education Department in this regard, is the conversion of the non-staffing allocation to dollars.
Two-line Budgets
We have also concluded, through the above analyses, that the overall direction to be pursued by the Education Department in coming years is "two-line budgeting": one line for "teaching staff" (expressed as "points" (or dollars), depending on further analyses by the Department) and one line for "contingencies" (expressed in dollars and covering all locally-controlled funds).
In line with our overall orientation, we advocate that this form of two-line budgeting be an option for schools to choose within Departmental guidelines prepared for this purpose.
As with other recommendations of the type, the School Council (or Board) will need to take the decision to choose the option and to demonstrate appropriate accountability.
98
And in accordance with the thrust of our other recommendations, we see the need to draw the Department's attention to ensuring that any increase in schools' responsibilities for managing their finances, be accompanied by centrally-funded training and support (human or technological).
RECOMMENDATION 25
That:
i) the Director-General of Education investigate the principle of allocation of teaching staff on a `points system', in place of the current system based on fui-time equivalents (FTEs);
ii) the application of any formula used to determine the allocation of non-teaching staff to schools, result in an allocation of dollars, not full-time equivalents (FTEs);
iii) the principal, with the approval of the School Council (or Board) can elect to seek from the Director-General, approval for a two-line budget covering teaching staff and contingencies;
iv) the principal shall be accountable to the School Council (or Board) for implementing the school development plan according to the plan's budget, and to the Director-General for proper observance of the statutory controls required for the Education Department's schools under the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1985; and
v) the Director-General assures training and support commensurate with the needs of schools to manage additional budgetary powers.